But this is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible to have a functioning growing network without people using it for their data. There can be no rewards, no farmers, no nodes, and no Network.
Are there any economies that survive that are all supply and no demand?
Speculators arenât users. If those technologies are struggling to find users, that is the core issue.
For me, I have no desire to use any of those services. I would use AWS S3 or some such, which is cheap enough for my app uses and is reliable, fast, scalable and well proven.
Safe Network is a very different proposition. It is far more than just cheaper data storage. If it was just a distributed S3 I would have little interest. Given few are using the above, I suspect others donât either.
There is also an interesting parallel with amazon and some of these projects. They may decentralise but some allow you to create contracts to store âstuffâ. This exposes âstuffâ and the users as well. I think this begs some questions around, is it decentralised ability to ban content at each users whim? I mean if I have a node and say nope I am not storing your data for ÂŁx or just because I donât like the content, then we might be in a worse cancel culture type thing.
To me decentralised is deeper than that and the inclusion of humans to negotiate contracts is a show stopper. There may be way around some issues, but perhaps itâs better to not have humans in the chain and also ensure data is encrypted by default.
From the answers I understand that the problem is in me. I do not explain well. Iâm sorry. Please allow me to try again. 
We know the following:
The data we see from other projects is that the ratio between users and speculators is tilted in the direction of speculators, but there are all 4 types of people.
What I am saying is that there may be an option in which we have a few users, a few speculator users, a few user speculators and many speculators only for a certain period of time.
There is a number of this ratio at which the Second Vampire Network attack can hit and destroy us. I ask people who are good at math to do simulations with this numbers and tell us if some who took out 5 million$ to make a copy of Safe can destroy us (as stated in the news that led to the resumption of the discussion.)
When we have this number, then we will be able to know at what rate of network growth we will need additional external assistance from the Foundation to upload data to the network so that it can grow until enough users appear to protected the network from vampires
I see it differently. There will be those who host data, those who create and upload, those who upload and those who browse.
It all starts there for me as moving to money speculation as a first I âthinkâ is wrong. I see this projects success in use of the network and nothing else. The value to me flows from use and not the other way round.
I could be wrong, I could be right, may the road rise with you 
David I guess you know that a lot of people in this community keep bags of MAID that they bought for speculation?
These people will sell them at a certain price of the token.
I do not know about human activity, in which people do not speculate. Coca-Cola shares are speculation. The only thing you can do them is sell them at a profit or loss.
If you go to a Coca-Cola factory and say you have shares and you want to drink a Coca-Cola, they will tell you that you canât - they donât accept shares, they only accept cash.
Therefore, the shares are not bought by people who like to drink Coca-Cola, but by people who speculate on the future price of the sharesâŚ
Itâs confusing, but wrong. Coca Cola bursn or dies based on user consumption, remember cherry coke? Their success was not down to original shareholders guzzling can of coke, it was consumer adoption. The shareholders donât generally get the consumers on board, they ride on the back of those who do.
Is Bitcoin the best blockchain product? No. But it has the highest price and this attracts the most eyes. Price matters, speculators are an important part of the ecosystemâŚ
First was a speculation that this will be successful tech, life-changing paradigm shift. Big speculation started in 2014, we are speculators⌠Itâs nothing wrong to put the money where your mouth isâŚ
IMO there are less than 1% of forum users who follow the tech for the long run but are not invested⌠Hands up, please? I donât expect manyâŚ
I think speculation has unfortunately a little pejorative meaning in your mind, doesnât it? Its nothing bad reallyâŚ
Without shareholders, there is too much risk to bear for one person. Projects in some specific areas cannot survive if they are not above the critical size, without shareholders those activities would not be even possible to begin.
But itâs being conflated with the value of the Network, and therefore the purpose.
The value of the network is in the data and in its usefulness to humans in them communicating with each other and getting things done in their everyday lives. This is pretty fundamental.
If anyone wants to increase the value of the Token, then what they need to concentrate on, is making the Network as useful as possibleâincreasing the demand.
Making that coke as thirst quenching, energising, tasty and accessible as possible.
Do you know what else is value for people? Money. Thatâs why people speculate with their money. I put my money in Safe because I like the idea and the dream. I can put it anywhere else, but I choose to speculate with Safe.
You can have both. Really. And that doesnât make you a bad person.
Itâs a different thing (now and unfortunately), currently itâs a wealth store, like a Monet or turner prize winner. Utility is dubious. So itâs apples and oranges comparison really.
Perhaps asking is Safe closer to a new Internet proposition (a usable thing) or to a blockchain asset?
And thatâs absolutely fine. And no one is calling anyone a bad person for that.
But if we want the Network to be a success, and for you to realise your individual dream of getting the return on the MAID you hope for, you need to understand where that value will ultimately come from: and that is people using the Network.
If not for shareholders or token investors we would not be here. So no negative feeling towards them at all, I am also one and maybe one of the largest.
And in order to have a network that people can use, you have to understand that there are bad people who are not interested in you and me. I call them vampires. They will take your labor and wrap it in glossy paper and steal our farmers and the data will disappear. Can we go back to discussing how to make the network economy better?
But Iâm explaining how to do that.
Do you think there will be Safe speculative farmers? Farmers with the capacity of those from the FileCoin network - servers with petabytes of hard drives?
I donât understand how that could be considered âspeculativeâ, itâs just being paid for providing resources, but yeah, Iâm sure there will be some that will have very large farms.
And if there is a surge of them, then the price of the token goes down, and it makes it less expensive and more attractive and for users to store their data on the network, which in turn increases demand, and so onâŚ
If these big farmers could get more money into another safe network, do you think they would move?
As it is not that easy like mining one day BTC and other BCH it must big motivation to fully switch. Maybe just just no adding more space to SN until bonus is collected.
With cheap token purchase than buying by others later on exchange, the farmers can dumb their holdings when moving back to make that network even less attractive.